Seperate Meters for EV Chargers.
Discussion
TheDeuce said:
kambites said:
But the whole point is to encourage people to charge at night when the grid load is otherwise low. The last thing they want to do is push people to charge at peak times by tax off-peak higher!
But it can still be cheaper to charge overnight, and have the charger record how much charge is delivered for tax purposes..Charge during the day, pay 20p per unit + 38% tax.
Charge during the night, pay 5p per unit + 38% tax.
The choice will be yours!
Or as you said earlier, could just evade the tax by using a granny charger. That can easily work for now.. but once smart chargers are the norm, it won't take long to mandate that the cars themselves track all current they have received and when back home or at a public charger, they transmit and charging data they have had from a non smart charger, to the smart charger.
Taxation is best when it is firstly collected through business and second, when it is tiered to both steer a population and to levy greater amounts on higher earners, users, more asset rich etc.
As such, the simple solution would be to take an average, small household without an EV usage fugue and set that as the zero VAT threshold, thus removing the poorest from the tax take altogether. You then levy higher VAT rates that fall on the broader shoulders of those with larger homes, those with EVs and those who just prolifically waste. That can also be tiered and can have some extremely high levels of taxation. It will also encourage home generation where plausible. As well as generating a surplus of take to ensure subsidies to the absolute poorest can be enacted at key moments.
DonkeyApple said:
TheDeuce said:
kambites said:
But the whole point is to encourage people to charge at night when the grid load is otherwise low. The last thing they want to do is push people to charge at peak times by tax off-peak higher!
But it can still be cheaper to charge overnight, and have the charger record how much charge is delivered for tax purposes..Charge during the day, pay 20p per unit + 38% tax.
Charge during the night, pay 5p per unit + 38% tax.
The choice will be yours!
Or as you said earlier, could just evade the tax by using a granny charger. That can easily work for now.. but once smart chargers are the norm, it won't take long to mandate that the cars themselves track all current they have received and when back home or at a public charger, they transmit and charging data they have had from a non smart charger, to the smart charger.
Taxation is best when it is firstly collected through business and second, when it is tiered to both steer a population and to levy greater amounts on higher earners, users, more asset rich etc.
As such, the simple solution would be to take an average, small household without an EV usage fugue and set that as the zero VAT threshold, thus removing the poorest from the tax take altogether. You then levy higher VAT rates that fall on the broader shoulders of those with larger homes, those with EVs and those who just prolifically waste. That can also be tiered and can have some extremely high levels of taxation. It will also encourage home generation where plausible. As well as generating a surplus of take to ensure subsidies to the absolute poorest can be enacted at key moments.
There is now a massive push to secure clean energy generation and rather than just meet 'targets' it appears some countries are already hoping to exceed those targets and instead go the whole hog and secure all the energy they need, forever, within their own shores. That accomplishment would bring such countries a fantastic advantage in terms of economic and global independence (IE no more russian gas line worries for us..).
Hence, it could be that we're not all about to be taxed on electricity as 'fuel', if the greater motivation is genuinely to reduce overall energy consumption - which EV uptake does help with, even though it's not perfect. It's still less energy intensive than ICE.
It's at least worth remembering that much of the tax on traditional fuels is levied because the core product being taxed is imported, and there is nothing worse for the domestic economy than buying in from overseas. If you can overall reduce energy usage to the point you can generate it all domestically, then less tax is required for the same overall yield from the treasuries point of view - because the people supplying the energy are also domestic tax payers, earning and spending their money domestically and being taxed on that activity too.
This is perhaps why the latest offshore wind turbines now have blades an incredible 100 metres long (think about that.. ) - because countries such as ours are starting to look at how viable it might be to secure unlimited 'free' energy and no longer be dependent on other states.
I have no idea how this will all ultimately play out, but I think there's a good chance energy could start to be seen as a point of national pride to enjoy, rather than a dirty import to be heavily taxed for enjoying. Or at very least, if we're to spend billions on domestic clean energy generation, I expect prospective future governments will promise low taxes in return for their plans to spend that level of public money on the project.
I'm not all rosy glasses though. I expect in 50 years time there will be stories about how a million mega-sized wind turbines have slowed down planatery winds and caused all sorts of new problems - nothing is truly for free
TheDeuce said:
DonkeyApple said:
TheDeuce said:
kambites said:
But the whole point is to encourage people to charge at night when the grid load is otherwise low. The last thing they want to do is push people to charge at peak times by tax off-peak higher!
But it can still be cheaper to charge overnight, and have the charger record how much charge is delivered for tax purposes..Charge during the day, pay 20p per unit + 38% tax.
Charge during the night, pay 5p per unit + 38% tax.
The choice will be yours!
Or as you said earlier, could just evade the tax by using a granny charger. That can easily work for now.. but once smart chargers are the norm, it won't take long to mandate that the cars themselves track all current they have received and when back home or at a public charger, they transmit and charging data they have had from a non smart charger, to the smart charger.
Taxation is best when it is firstly collected through business and second, when it is tiered to both steer a population and to levy greater amounts on higher earners, users, more asset rich etc.
As such, the simple solution would be to take an average, small household without an EV usage fugue and set that as the zero VAT threshold, thus removing the poorest from the tax take altogether. You then levy higher VAT rates that fall on the broader shoulders of those with larger homes, those with EVs and those who just prolifically waste. That can also be tiered and can have some extremely high levels of taxation. It will also encourage home generation where plausible. As well as generating a surplus of take to ensure subsidies to the absolute poorest can be enacted at key moments.
There is now a massive push to secure clean energy generation and rather than just meet 'targets' it appears some countries are already hoping to exceed those targets and instead go the whole hog and secure all the energy they need, forever, within their own shores. That accomplishment would bring such countries a fantastic advantage in terms of economic and global independence (IE no more russian gas line worries for us..).
Hence, it could be that we're not all about to be taxed on electricity as 'fuel', if the greater motivation is genuinely to reduce overall energy consumption - which EV uptake does help with, even though it's not perfect. It's still less energy intensive than ICE.
It's at least worth remembering that much of the tax on traditional fuels is levied because the core product being taxed is imported, and there is nothing worse for the domestic economy than buying in from overseas. If you can overall reduce energy usage to the point you can generate it all domestically, then less tax is required for the same overall yield from the treasuries point of view - because the people supplying the energy are also domestic tax payers, earning and spending their money domestically and being taxed on that activity too.
This is perhaps why the latest offshore wind turbines now have blades an incredible 100 metres long (think about that.. ) - because countries such as ours are starting to look at how viable it might be to secure unlimited 'free' energy and no longer be dependent on other states.
I have no idea how this will all ultimately play out, but I think there's a good chance energy could start to be seen as a point of national pride to enjoy, rather than a dirty import to be heavily taxed for enjoying. Or at very least, if we're to spend billions on domestic clean energy generation, I expect prospective future governments will promise low taxes in return for their plans to spend that level of public money on the project.
I'm not all rosy glasses though. I expect in 50 years time there will be stories about how a million mega-sized wind turbines have slowed down planatery winds and caused all sorts of new problems - nothing is truly for free
However, I wouldn't conflate this with taxation. We are arguably the most efficient tax regime on the planet and have been since the 10th century. We've always been hugely efficient at raising taxation and arguably this has been the backbone of the general absence of bloody revolutions as well as never actually being either a capitalist, communist or socialist regime. It's what allowed the NHS to exist for example. And efficient taxation is what steers the population. The only reason there are 400,000 EVs on the roads in the U.K. ahead of EVs being fiscally competitive against ICE is due to taxation.
Energy consumption as well as movement will always be taxed. With the looming disconnect from the oil and gas economy we face two clear options, to increase taxation on energy consumption or to increase taxation on movement. The latter being a natural offence to British sensibilities. Tiered consumption taxes on energy are almost inevitable. The mechanism already exists and it is almost the most efficient form of tax collection in the U.K. after PAYE. It's also benign. It's a personal option to live more prolifically. In other words, it's a 'pleasant' tax. Unlike a tax on movement which has an insidious nature, not just because it means tracking people but because it is punitive to lower incomes. The more affluent you are the less you have to travel for essential economic purpose.
Taxing cars on movement isn't an equitable solution because of that. Whereas taxing excess consumption is fair. Those of us who chose to live in expensive homes etc can afford to pay more than those who have little choice how they live. It's why we absolve those people from Income tax, inheritance tax, CGT etc while levying more on higher earners etc.
Current fuel tax isn't ideal as while we can moderate how much we pay via our choice of vehicle what we cannot moderate is how far someone has to travel for work. As the population migrated to EV it is an opportunity to address that social imbalance as opposed to amplifying it by adopting a punitive per mile regime.
Plus, with EVs, the poorest car users won't have access to cheap domestic fuelling but have to pay corporate premiums at third party chargers which presents an enormous domestic taxation opportunity that is unlikely to be missed or be politically palatable.
Some American States levy a surcharge on EVs to compensate for lost tax revenue:
https://www.myev.com/research/interesting-finds/st...
https://www.startribune.com/why-do-electric-vehicl...
Still living in fear of Dingy "calling me out" for inappropriate posts
https://www.myev.com/research/interesting-finds/st...
https://www.startribune.com/why-do-electric-vehicl...
Still living in fear of Dingy "calling me out" for inappropriate posts
Touching on the point of efficient taxation isn't one of the core issues with mileage / usage pricing of the road network that end users will naturally orientate towards the most tax efficient means of using the road network. So a road pricing scheme that for example is based on onramp metering of trunk routes via say ANPR cameras would see a shift of usage towards non trunk routes that are not metered or metered at the lower rate.
So any taxation system for road usage has to capture all usage routes increasing either the technical complexity or the collection cost. The first being via for example in vehicle means that report back to DVLA/HMRC for billing with a secondary need for external enforcement monitoring, probably a mixture of fixed and mobile road side cameras. Second being the costs of installing and maintaining a sufficiently comprehensive network of ANPR cameras to cover the vast majority of journeys and in particular likely "rat running" alternate routes.
Some form of energy consumption taxation scheme would in comparison be relatively simple and cheap to implement with the costs for implementation primarily borne by the energy providers. There are of course upsides in trying to connect such a system to the environmental movement around reducing individual carbon footprints.
However where the zero surcharge consumption level is set would have to be carefully considered, would this be per household or per individual? Over time such a taxation scheme will become a political football much like income, inheritance and CGT already are with the potential to inadvertently "harm" certain user groups that aren't necessarily wasteful just have higher inherent energy needs. Certain political parties could in the future choose to campaign on higher or lower household carbon budgets or changing to differential taxation bands.
So any taxation system for road usage has to capture all usage routes increasing either the technical complexity or the collection cost. The first being via for example in vehicle means that report back to DVLA/HMRC for billing with a secondary need for external enforcement monitoring, probably a mixture of fixed and mobile road side cameras. Second being the costs of installing and maintaining a sufficiently comprehensive network of ANPR cameras to cover the vast majority of journeys and in particular likely "rat running" alternate routes.
Some form of energy consumption taxation scheme would in comparison be relatively simple and cheap to implement with the costs for implementation primarily borne by the energy providers. There are of course upsides in trying to connect such a system to the environmental movement around reducing individual carbon footprints.
However where the zero surcharge consumption level is set would have to be carefully considered, would this be per household or per individual? Over time such a taxation scheme will become a political football much like income, inheritance and CGT already are with the potential to inadvertently "harm" certain user groups that aren't necessarily wasteful just have higher inherent energy needs. Certain political parties could in the future choose to campaign on higher or lower household carbon budgets or changing to differential taxation bands.
bigothunter said:
Some American States levy a surcharge on EVs to compensate for lost tax revenue:
https://www.myev.com/research/interesting-finds/st...
https://www.startribune.com/why-do-electric-vehicl...
Still living in fear of Dingy "calling me out" for inappropriate posts
Taxation is all about timing. It's currently being used to create a market that cannot exist at this moment in time via market forces but once that market is created then it will be taxed as heavily as it can be to reach 'riot' point, or in the case of the U.K., the extreme indicator of crushing social unrest, the letter to the Times. https://www.myev.com/research/interesting-finds/st...
https://www.startribune.com/why-do-electric-vehicl...
Still living in fear of Dingy "calling me out" for inappropriate posts
And as more electricity is generated domestically then this releases more money available for taxation as it is no longer thrown at the external fossil fuel market.
In the U.K. there won't be a single revenue flow related to EVs that won't be taxed. If movement can be taxed then it will be but the plausibility of that is dependent on whether future generations shed their desire to be tracked by Govt. Given the religious backbone element to crypto among this group it's hard to imagine current sentiment swinging in favour of everyone carrying around a specific box that taxes their position within the U.K.
Taxing electricity use is ultra efficient and hugely politically favourable given that it can be structured quite accurately map wealth, consumption and hate.
Plus, the U.K. is actually in a good place to eventually become an exporter of cheap wind energy into a European market that is just 22 miles away and divided into a series of nations many of whom have severe issues with regards to self generation but are subject to strict penalties for not doing so. This is why the European mainland is driving the investment in hydrogen as its the only possible solution, at present, to importing green electricity to meet the absolutely enormous shortfall between consumption and generation. Europe's solution is to import green electricity from developing nations via hydrogen batteries which of course wind energy from the U.K. can hugely undercut as it can be piped from source with barely any losses, unlike having to convert it to hydrogen, ship it across oceans and then convert it back.
While becoming an exporter of energy again is clearly some way off and contains significant hurdles such as Scotland joint the EU and taking a large slice of our energy production with it, it won't hinder the raising of taxation on all aspects of EV use which will begin to be firmly in place once there are sufficient EVs on the road and more importantly, they become price competitive to ICE or post 2035, which we is sooner.
DonkeyApple said:
With the looming disconnect from the oil and gas economy we face two clear options, to increase taxation on energy consumption or to increase taxation on movement. The latter being a natural offence to British sensibilities. Tiered consumption taxes on energy are almost inevitable. The mechanism already exists and it is almost the most efficient form of tax collection in the U.K. after PAYE. It's also benign. It's a personal option to live more prolifically. In other words, it's a 'pleasant' tax. Unlike a tax on movement which has an insidious nature, not just because it means tracking people but because it is punitive to lower incomes. The more affluent you are the less you have to travel for essential economic purpose.
This might be true if it wasn't for the push to move heating over to electricity. Making it unaffordable for people to keep their homes warm would be far more unpopular than making it unaffordable to travel. If they put tiered taxes on electricity consumption and then stop people using gas to heat homes, it is the poor who get cold. There is no way the government is going to try to recoup the lost revenue from petrol duty by taxing electricity based on total consumption whilst also banning the installation of new gas boilers. It would be political suicide. I actually think the government would get pretty strong public support for directly taxing travel. Certainly not amongst PHers and perhaps not amongst over 40s in general, but by the time this becomes a major issue the current over 40s will all be over 50s and the majority of people of voting age will be millennials who would, I think, be supportive of such measures overall.
IF there is a means to tax electricity depending on what it's used for, I would agree with you... but there just isn't; at least not without data gathering every bit as "insidious" as mileage tracking! (ie direct communication from car to government).
Edited by kambites on Sunday 9th January 09:46
b0rk said:
Touching on the point of efficient taxation isn't one of the core issues with mileage / usage pricing of the road network that end users will naturally orientate towards the most tax efficient means of using the road network. So a road pricing scheme that for example is based on onramp metering of trunk routes via say ANPR cameras would see a shift of usage towards non trunk routes that are not metered or metered at the lower rate.
So any taxation system for road usage has to capture all usage routes increasing either the technical complexity or the collection cost. The first being via for example in vehicle means that report back to DVLA/HMRC for billing with a secondary need for external enforcement monitoring, probably a mixture of fixed and mobile road side cameras. Second being the costs of installing and maintaining a sufficiently comprehensive network of ANPR cameras to cover the vast majority of journeys and in particular likely "rat running" alternate routes.
Some form of energy consumption taxation scheme would in comparison be relatively simple and cheap to implement with the costs for implementation primarily borne by the energy providers. There are of course upsides in trying to connect such a system to the environmental movement around reducing individual carbon footprints.
However where the zero surcharge consumption level is set would have to be carefully considered, would this be per household or per individual? Over time such a taxation scheme will become a political football much like income, inheritance and CGT already are with the potential to inadvertently "harm" certain user groups that aren't necessarily wasteful just have higher inherent energy needs. Certain political parties could in the future choose to campaign on higher or lower household carbon budgets or changing to differential taxation bands.
Yes. It's about balance. We can see the effects of this when we look at sections of road such as the M6 Toll, tolls over Thames bridges or Autoroute tolls in France. So any taxation system for road usage has to capture all usage routes increasing either the technical complexity or the collection cost. The first being via for example in vehicle means that report back to DVLA/HMRC for billing with a secondary need for external enforcement monitoring, probably a mixture of fixed and mobile road side cameras. Second being the costs of installing and maintaining a sufficiently comprehensive network of ANPR cameras to cover the vast majority of journeys and in particular likely "rat running" alternate routes.
Some form of energy consumption taxation scheme would in comparison be relatively simple and cheap to implement with the costs for implementation primarily borne by the energy providers. There are of course upsides in trying to connect such a system to the environmental movement around reducing individual carbon footprints.
However where the zero surcharge consumption level is set would have to be carefully considered, would this be per household or per individual? Over time such a taxation scheme will become a political football much like income, inheritance and CGT already are with the potential to inadvertently "harm" certain user groups that aren't necessarily wasteful just have higher inherent energy needs. Certain political parties could in the future choose to campaign on higher or lower household carbon budgets or changing to differential taxation bands.
Motorway tolls can charge far more than we could in the U.K. because the U.K. is very small and has an extremely high density road network so the more you price up a road the more flow opts to use alternatives. France being so much larger and with far fewer route alternatives can levy higher fees. The Dartford crossing could charge vastly more than it does because it's the only way to cross at that point and the price is only constraint by politics.
The CCZ has paved the way for taxes on entering cities. Others have joined, more will follow and in 2025 EVs will have their exemption removed from the CCZ and in due course from all such city movement taxes. ULEZ is currently testing how much tax can be levied before you start losing business and which elements of the population will accept greater taxation than others.
If we were to roll city taxation structures out to motorways then you'd only be able to levy small fees so as drivers are willing to pay those fees instead of opting for a slower alternative.
The benefit of an ANPR system is that it bypasses the political hurdle of forcing people to carry trackers with them. It's not entirely logical as we all carry phones and ANPR and CCTV monitor us and we are generally fine with this but black boxes are subtly different and fall into that whole ID, Covid passport bucket and tend to be viewed as more akin to poll taxes etc.
DonkeyApple said:
The CCZ has paved the way for taxes on entering cities. Others have joined, more will follow and in 2025 EVs will have their exemption removed from the CCZ and in due course from all such city movement taxes. ULEZ is currently testing how much tax can be levied before you start losing business and which elements of the population will accept greater taxation than others.
City movement taxation has surely been successful thus far in reduction of congestion and by extension emissions/carbon because in the case of cities you have a zonal location that people want or need to go to which is distinct from where they come from. The points of ingress and egress can then be limited and controlled to make monitoring via CCTV viable and the charging system is sufficiently simple that you only need to tariff entry to the zone. A more general movement taxation system would have to consider both entries and exits calculating the tariff based on distance and/or time between the points. Probably with some form of micro-zoning to capture as much of the overall journey as possible, accepting that end to end capture isn't possible.
However what is obvious from the TFL CCZ is that the system has considerable operating costs with net revenue being roughly 50% of total revenue. So trying to scale up such a system to work at national level and achieve the same net revenue would require a considerable increase in the tax take say £80bn in tax required for £40bn in net revenue. I expect that in reality the systematic costs will be higher than 50% of revenue further increasing tax take required.
In vehicle systems ignoring the privacy elements will themselves not be particularly cheap to operate once all the elements of the system are considered, fitting, data, monitoring, management, billing etc. There will of course need to be an element of external monitoring probably ANPR cameras to reduce opportunities for fraud by people underclaiming usage or claiming usage on lower tariff sections which adds to the systematic cost and a need to refresh the box regularly to counter whatever defeat devices are developed.
Avoiding all this complexity and going directly for a consumption tax on energy makes a lot of sense both in terms of systematic operating cost and the potential for making the system "fair". Base consumption levels could be set to cover typical or desired consumption factoring in things like electric heating. Secondary tariffs could then be used as a stick to accelerate change away from coal, oil and gas for domestic use. Indeed its probable that a market would develop for low usage consumers to sell their spare allocation to higher consumers. A domestic carbon trading scheme if you like.
b0rk said:
City movement taxation has surely been successful thus far in reduction of congestion and by extension emissions/carbon because in the case of cities you have a zonal location that people want or need to go to which is distinct from where they come from. The points of ingress and egress can then be limited and controlled to make monitoring via CCTV viable and the charging system is sufficiently simple that you only need to tariff entry to the zone.
A more general movement taxation system would have to consider both entries and exits calculating the tariff based on distance and/or time between the points. Probably with some form of micro-zoning to capture as much of the overall journey as possible, accepting that end to end capture isn't possible.
However what is obvious from the TFL CCZ is that the system has considerable operating costs with net revenue being roughly 50% of total revenue. So trying to scale up such a system to work at national level and achieve the same net revenue would require a considerable increase in the tax take say £80bn in tax required for £40bn in net revenue. I expect that in reality the systematic costs will be higher than 50% of revenue further increasing tax take required.
In vehicle systems ignoring the privacy elements will themselves not be particularly cheap to operate once all the elements of the system are considered, fitting, data, monitoring, management, billing etc. There will of course need to be an element of external monitoring probably ANPR cameras to reduce opportunities for fraud by people underclaiming usage or claiming usage on lower tariff sections which adds to the systematic cost and a need to refresh the box regularly to counter whatever defeat devices are developed.
Avoiding all this complexity and going directly for a consumption tax on energy makes a lot of sense both in terms of systematic operating cost and the potential for making the system "fair". Base consumption levels could be set to cover typical or desired consumption factoring in things like electric heating. Secondary tariffs could then be used as a stick to accelerate change away from coal, oil and gas for domestic use. Indeed its probable that a market would develop for low usage consumers to sell their spare allocation to higher consumers. A domestic carbon trading scheme if you like.
One thing I can assure you is that they've not been success in dealing with congestion or emissions but works as a tax. A more general movement taxation system would have to consider both entries and exits calculating the tariff based on distance and/or time between the points. Probably with some form of micro-zoning to capture as much of the overall journey as possible, accepting that end to end capture isn't possible.
However what is obvious from the TFL CCZ is that the system has considerable operating costs with net revenue being roughly 50% of total revenue. So trying to scale up such a system to work at national level and achieve the same net revenue would require a considerable increase in the tax take say £80bn in tax required for £40bn in net revenue. I expect that in reality the systematic costs will be higher than 50% of revenue further increasing tax take required.
In vehicle systems ignoring the privacy elements will themselves not be particularly cheap to operate once all the elements of the system are considered, fitting, data, monitoring, management, billing etc. There will of course need to be an element of external monitoring probably ANPR cameras to reduce opportunities for fraud by people underclaiming usage or claiming usage on lower tariff sections which adds to the systematic cost and a need to refresh the box regularly to counter whatever defeat devices are developed.
Avoiding all this complexity and going directly for a consumption tax on energy makes a lot of sense both in terms of systematic operating cost and the potential for making the system "fair". Base consumption levels could be set to cover typical or desired consumption factoring in things like electric heating. Secondary tariffs could then be used as a stick to accelerate change away from coal, oil and gas for domestic use. Indeed its probable that a market would develop for low usage consumers to sell their spare allocation to higher consumers. A domestic carbon trading scheme if you like.
The key is that it is not a complex system. It's simply a network of ANPR cameras and as long as a number plate is spotted once the owner is taxed. Extremely simple to roll out on motorways as you'd just need cameras at each junction. No need to even try and be clever about measuring how much the tarmac is used it's just a tax on using it. Set to a low enough level that not even a Yorkshireman will bother avoiding it.
Consumption taxes are the best though. Ultra efficient and equitable. The collection mechanism already exists and it could be implemented in a basic form by 8am this morning. The utility vendor simply doesn't apply VAT to usage below a certain threshold and applies a proper rate to that above.
Of course, you have VED as well which you'd switch to size and weight. Both environmental impacts as well as pretty well linked to affordability.
Multiple taxes will be applied and their rates adjusted to achieve the desired balance between collection and control.
Whether one of those taxes involves a black box that tracks citizen movements is down to the people at the time and whether they accept that invasion of privacy. Of all the taxes it's the hardest to sell and as you're collecting direct from the individual the least efficient.
You never want a tax that collects from the individual if it can be avoided because it's slow to collect and extremely costly chasing the non payments. The joy of collecting tax via a utility is that the private company does all the work for you and carries the cost of collection. In turn they can simply cut the power off to a property and send people to take the TVs which means the majority of people settle when asked.
DonkeyApple said:
Multiple taxes will be applied and their rates adjusted to achieve the desired balance between collection and control.
Precisely - the Chancellor will not ignore viable opportunities to collect tax including different electricity charges between domestic and EV use. Also I cannot imagine EVs being permitted to enjoy such low energy cost per mile, after their introductory honeymoon.bigothunter said:
Some American States levy a surcharge on EVs to compensate for lost tax revenue:
https://www.myev.com/research/interesting-finds/st...
https://www.startribune.com/why-do-electric-vehicl...
Still living in fear of Dingy "calling me out" for inappropriate posts
normally states owned by big oil and the car lobbyists https://www.myev.com/research/interesting-finds/st...
https://www.startribune.com/why-do-electric-vehicl...
Still living in fear of Dingy "calling me out" for inappropriate posts
bigothunter said:
DonkeyApple said:
Multiple taxes will be applied and their rates adjusted to achieve the desired balance between collection and control.
Precisely - the Chancellor will not ignore viable opportunities to collect tax including different electricity charges between domestic and EV use. Also I cannot imagine EVs being permitted to enjoy such low energy cost per mile, after their introductory honeymoon.bigothunter said:
Dave Hedgehog said:
normally states owned by big oil and the car lobbyists
With a great deal more clout than car lobbyists here in the UK...kambites said:
The debate is just over whether it's practical to do so by taxing the electricity then run on. Personally I think there are easier ways to tax them which will give greater control over people's car usage.
Differential electricity taxation appears technologically simple and practical. Alongside other taxation measures, surely the Chancellor will not resist grasping this low-hanging fruit?bigothunter said:
kambites said:
The debate is just over whether it's practical to do so by taxing the electricity then run on. Personally I think there are easier ways to tax them which will give greater control over people's car usage.
Differential electricity taxation appears technologically simple and practical. Alongside other taxation measures, surely the Chancellor will not resist grasping this low-hanging fruit?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Interlocked-Socket-Plug-M...
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff